Is the GOSPEL a work of the Holy Spirit, or not?

[Skandelon]

How is the ability to respond in faith to the Gospel considered a work of man, when the Gospel itself is a powerful supernatural work of the Holy Spirit? It was and is inspired, carried and preserved by the Holy Spirit, right?

Why does a work of the Holy Spirit have to be effectual for its results not to be called a "work of man?"

Does the ability to reject the Gospel's appeal make it any less gracious?

Does the ability to reject a gift make the Giver any less glorious for giving it?

How does the ability to resist the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing us the Gospel appeal make it any less of a work of the Holy Spirit? Does it make those who receive it any less grateful?

 

[JesusFan]

How is the ability to respond in faith to the Gospel considered a work of man, when the Gospel itself is a powerful supernatural work of the Holy Spirit? It was and is inspired, carried and preserved by the Holy Spirit, right?

NONE here would deny that, but would deny that it can work on those whom have hard haerts and deaf ears due to being in their loss sinful state!

Why does a work of the Holy Spirit have to be effectual for its results not to be called a "work of man?"

Does the ability to reject the Gospel's appeal make it any less gracious?

Does the ability to reject a gift make the Giver any less glorious for giving it?

How does the ability to resist the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing us the Gospel appeal make it any less of a work of the Holy Spirit? Does it make those who receive it any less grateful?

well, IF God desired to save someone, send forth His Spirit and His word, and the word does NOT return with accomplishing its assigned task...

IF there is NOT effectual/irristible Grace from God. than how can it NOT save those desiring to redeem?

 

[canadyjd]

How is the ability to respond in faith to the Gospel considered a work of man, when the Gospel itself is a powerful supernatural work of the Holy Spirit? It was and is inspired, carried and preserved by the Holy Spirit, right?

I Cor. 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

There is no inate ability to respond in faith to the gospel, even though the gospel is a work of Holy Spirit. The natural man must become a spiritual man. That can only be accomplished by a work of God.

Why does a work of the Holy Spirit have to be effectual for its results not to be called a "work of man?"

You are equating the work of Holy Spirit in the giving of the Gospel to the work of Holy Spirit in regeneration. I don't believe they are one and the same.

Does the ability to reject the Gospel's appeal make it any less gracious?

{edit response for clarification} Are you equating the "ability to reject the Gospel's appeal" with the "ability to reject the (in)effectual call of Holy Spirit?

How does the ability to resist the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing us the Gospel appeal make it any less of a work of the Holy Spirit"?

Because God doesn't fail in what He purposes to accomplish.

If God purposes to bring a sinner to salvation, don't you believe God knows exactly how much influence He needs to work in the heart of such a person to bring Him to faith?

Knowing exactly how much influence He needs to work in the heart of such a person, why would God work less than needed to bring such a person to salvation, if He really purposed to bring such a person to salvation? Why waste the time in that case, since God knows His efforts will fail?

I just cannot believe that Almighty God can fail to accomplish what He purposes.

peace to youraying:

 

[Skandelon]

well, IF God desired to save someone, send forth His Spirit and His word, and the word does NOT return with accomplishing its assigned task...

Depends on what you presume the desired task of the Word is.

If the desired task is to effectual save the person who hears it then you are right, but clearly that's not it because then everyone who heard the gospel would be saved.

But if the desired task to to make an appeal for everyone who hears it to be reconciled to God, then to presume those who hear it can't be appealed to due to a fallen nature undermines its very purpose.

What other purpose is a message of reconcilation than to reconcile enemies? Why presume an enemy couldn't hear it and respond since it was purposed for enemies?

 

[Aaron]

The purpose of the Gospel is to save the elect, and that it does.

 

[Skandelon]

I Cor. 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Yes, and how are "the deep things of God" (the subject of Paul's discourse according to vs. 10) spiritually discerned? Scripture, which is Spiritually inspired writers recording deep spiritual matters of the faith being recorded for the very first time as Paul is writing this letter.

You see, even the carnal believers in Corinth could not receive these Spiritual things according to the next couple of versus, so clearly Paul's subject was not the truths of the Gospel which were ALREADY discerned for us by the Spirit through the teaching by His appointed messengers; who founded this church and first converted these brethren with the "milk" of the Gospel that they had already believed.

There is no inate ability to respond in faith to the gospel, even though the gospel is a work of Holy Spirit. The natural man must become a spiritual man. That can only be accomplished by a work of God.

See, you did it again. You assume that the Gospel is not a sufficient work of the HS to accomplish its intended task, but clearly it was sufficient to bring these "carnal" brethren in Corinth to faith in the milk, but there was more meat to be revealed through the inspiration of the apostles teaching... the chosen authoritative means by which the Spirit was discerning these deep truths of God to the world.

You are equating the work of Holy Spirit in the giving of the Gospel to the work of Holy Spirit in regeneration.

No, I'm only arguing that the first is sufficient to save, where as the second is the result of faith. After all the bible does say that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation...and that we believe unto new life.

I don't believe they are one and the same. {edit response for clarification} Are you equating the "ability to reject the Gospel's appeal" with the "ability to reject the (in)effectual call of Holy Spirit? Because God doesn't fail in what He purposes to accomplish.

See my response to JF above. It all depends on what you presume the purpose of the Gospel is.

If God purposes to bring a sinner to salvation, don't you believe God knows exactly how much influence He needs to work in the heart of such a person to bring Him to faith?

Sure, but I'm not the one who believes God want's to effectually save people despite what they would choose to do. I believe God delights in man's faith and their free response to love and worship Him, not in their being made like the rocks to cry out.

I just cannot believe that Almighty God can fail to accomplish what He purposes.

I totally agree, which is why we differ on what we believe God's purposes to do. I don't believe God purposes to effectually save certain people. I believe He purposes to appeal to the world of lost sinners, "Be reconciled to God," and to hold them accountable for their free moral response to that appeal.

 

[Skandelon]

The purpose of the Gospel is to save the elect, and that it does.

Yet scripture teaches:

But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John. -Luke 7:30

 

[convicted1]

The purpose of the Gospel is to save the elect, and that it does.

And yet, the OT Jews, as a whole, were God's chosen people/elect, and many perished because of their rebellion. If God saved all His Elect, as you have stated here, then none of these Jews would have died lost.

 

[JesusFan]

Depends on what you presume the desired task of the Word is.
gospel is the Agent God uses to save people

produces faith in the person God has elected out to receive Eternal life in Christ

If the desired task is to effectual save the person who hears it then you are right, but clearly that's not it because then everyone who heard the gospel would be saved.

except that due to us being sinners and unable to respond in our flesh to god, he has to apply effectual grace, by having Holy spirit "open us" up enought spiritual sense to have than able to freely respond to jesus!

But if the desired task to to make an appeal for everyone who hears it to be reconciled to God, then to presume those who hear it can't be appealed to due to a fallen nature undermines its very purpose.

god has already reconciled sinners to himself in Cross of Christ in sense that He applies "general benefits" of it towards all, and "effectually" benefits from it to His elec

What other purpose is a message of reconcilation than to reconcile enemies? Why presume an enemy couldn't hear it and respond since it was purposed for enemies?

Again, you are presuming that is the intended purpose of God, when scriptures would teach us otherwise!

 

[glfredrick]

How is the ability to respond in faith to the Gospel considered a work of man, when the Gospel itself is a powerful supernatural work of the Holy Spirit? It was and is inspired, carried and preserved by the Holy Spirit, right?

Why does a work of the Holy Spirit have to be effectual for its results not to be called a "work of man?"

Does the ability to reject the Gospel's appeal make it any less gracious?

Does the ability to reject a gift make the Giver any less glorious for giving it?

How does the ability to resist the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing us the Gospel appeal make it any less of a work of the Holy Spirit? Does it make those who receive it any less grateful?

And, I would presume that eventually, your followup question will be: "Then if one does resist the Word of God, why do we still call it effective? Because of man's choice in the matter?

Oh, and which part of God's Word are you talking about? The part that God authored or the part that man authored? :tonofbricks:

 

[Van]

Excellent thead, Skandelon!

Note the responses from Calvinism:

(1) God desires to save whom He has chosen by compulsion.

(2) Quoting scripture out of context, for 1 Cor 2:14-3:3 teaches men of flesh can understand the milk of the gospel.

(3) Purpose of Gospel is to save the Elect (with Elect refering not to Jews but to those individually chosen for salvation.) But 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God chooses individuals for salvation based on faith in the truth. So a cart before the horse argument.

 

[Skandelon]

And, I would presume that eventually, your followup question will be: "Then if one does resist the Word of God, why do we still call it effective? Because of man's choice in the matter?

If that choice is to reject, then even your "camp" would affirm that last question with a Yes, wouldn't you? Otherwise, you'd be affirming Double Predestination, right?

And we call it effective, because it produces its intended result. To enable those who hear it to believe and be saved. "Enabling someone to come" doesn't imply "effectually making them come."

Oh, and which part of God's Word are you talking about? The part that God authored or the part that man authored? :tonofbricks:

What? Go handle some snakes, put your wife in a hat, start regularly encouraging young men to remain single and then come back with a consistent argument.

 

[glfredrick]

If that choice is to reject, then even your "camp" would affirm that last question with a Yes, wouldn't you? Otherwise, you'd be affirming Double Predestination, right?

Of course not... And, my choice is obviously other than your own. I posed the follow up questions because I figured that you would get there eventually. There can be no "double predesination" in a true Calvinist sense, for all are damned because all are born dead in sin. It takes an Arminian or Pelagian perspective to even offer the potential for double predesintination, because those doctrines are the ones that offer the fact that man is but sin sick and not truly spirirually dead.

And we call it effective, because it produces its intended result. To enable those who hear it to believe and be saved. "Enabling someone to come" doesn't imply "effectually making them come."

Yes, and all starting with God's election. Now, we're getting somewhere.

What? Go handle some snakes, put your wife in a hat, start regularly encouraging young men to remain single and then come back with a consistent argument.

You are arguing for God's Word, but earlier you admitted that you see the Bible as having some of God's words within it. Just wanting to know how you know which is which, and which ones you are talking about here. :laugh:

 

[JesusFan]

Of course not... And, my choice is obviously other than your own. I posed the follow up questions because I figured that you would get there eventually. There can be no "double predesination" in a true Calvinist sense, for all are damned because all are born dead in sin. It takes an Arminian or Pelagian perspective to even offer the potential for double predesintination, because those doctrines are the ones that offer the fact that man is but sin sick and not truly spirirually dead.



Yes, and all starting with God's election. Now, we're getting somewhere.



You are arguing for God's Word, but earlier you admitted that you see the Bible as having some of God's words within it. Just wanting to know how you know which is which, and which ones you are talking about here. :laugh:

Think that many of those over in Skan camp have a big problem with God somehow imputing to us fault for fall of Adam, that its not fair that God makes us sinners and considers us accountibility for something "not our fault!"

Also, does he see Bible as being culturally mandated that parts were JSUT addressing culture inBible times, just for back than, rest of it for us today!

 

[Skandelon]

Think that many of those over in Skan camp have a big problem with God somehow imputing to us fault for fall of Adam, that its not fair that God makes us sinners and considers us accountibility for something "not our fault!"

1. It's not my camp.
2. I don't believe what you have just accused me of.

Allow me to re-quote myself from a previous post, which I believe was addressed to you when you made the same mistake:

"The wonder of God's mercy and grace is NOT that He doesn't save everyone; it is that He even saves ANYONE!"

This is the very essence of what I believe, even as a non-Calvinist. God is not in any way morally obligated to save anyone because we deserve it. Again, this is a point upon which we can all agree.

However, God has obligated Himself, both morally and judicially, to save whosoever will come (believe). Not because they deserve it, but because He sent forth His Son to be a propitiation for sins of whole world, which is to be applied only through faith. His universal call to "every creature" to faith and repentance obligates him to save whosoever repents and believes. The doctrine that teaches that God only grants this ability to willingly repent and believe to a select few while appearing to call "every creature" is what causes the non-Calvinists to cry, "Foul!"

I don't believe the Calvinistic view of God is unjust because he condemns certain people to hell. I believe the Calvinistic view of God is unjust because He offers a pardon to all mankind while only granted a few of them the ability to receive it, all the while expressing a desire for all to come to repentance and a frustration for those who remain unwilling.

It is deceptive to offer someone a gift you fully know they cannot willingly receive. Especially if you, the giver, are the one who determines the receivers natural abilities. That type of offer cannot be geniune!

 

[Skandelon]

Of course not... And, my choice is obviously other than your own.

Then answer your own question:

Then if one does resist the Word of God, why do we still call it effective?

Surely, we both agree God's word is effective, right? And we both affirm that God genuinely offers the gospel appeal to all people, right?

So, if one resists the appeal what is the reason? See you question below:

Because of man's choice in the matter?

Yet again, the answer must be YES for both of us, unless you affirm Double Predestination.

It takes an Arminian or Pelagian perspective to even offer the potential for double predesintination, because those doctrines are the ones that offer the fact that man is but sin sick and not truly spirirually dead.

That ignores the fact that Calvinism teaches it was God who chose for Adam's descendants to become Totally Depraved as a result of the fall. Not to mention to view of some "higher" or "extreme" Calvinists who argue that even Adam's intent to sin was determined by God. So, while one camp may attempt to put in one degree of separation by using a more complex semantical explanation, the result is the same.

Yes, and all starting with God's election. Now, we're getting somewhere.

I don't think the phrase, "Enabling someone to come" doesn't imply "effectually making them come," means what you think it means.

 

[JesusFan]

1. It's not my camp.
2. I don't believe what you have just accused me of.

Allow me to re-quote myself from a previous post, which I believe was addressed to you when you made the same mistake:

thanks for clarifing this point!....

Would you say on this point that IF one deny doctrine of "original Sin" would fall into this view of God?

 

[convicted1]

Think that many of those over in Skan camp have a big problem with God somehow imputing to us fault for fall of Adam, that its not fair that God makes us sinners and considers us accountibility for something "not our fault!"

Well, Bro. JF, let's look at it like this. A while back, about 1.5 hrs from where I live, a kid accidently shot and killed their younger sibling(I think about two or three y/o). Now, all signs pointed to the older sibling, less than ten y/o, but not for sure the exact age, and the mother witnessed this happening. If you took that young child to court, it would no doubt be found guilty of murder, or someother type of crime, possibly. But, at that age, they will never prosecute someone that young because they did not know the ramifications of what transpired. The bible states, "Blessed is the man to God will not impute sin."

As children, it is the same way in regards to their sins. If they lied, do they know they lied? Yes. If they stole a cookie when mommy told them not to eat it, and mommy caught them with it, and they then state, "I got this cookie for you", they are actually guilty of two sins, stealing and lying. However, in regards to sinning against God, they did not know that. Therefore, God will not hold them accountable for those sins. After God shows them to be a sinner, and then they lie and/or steal, and know that what they did was wrong, then God holds them accountable for them.

Psalm 32:2 Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

Romans 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.



Deut. 1:38 But Joshua the son of Nun, which standeth before thee, he shall go in thither: encourage him: for he shall cause Israel to inherit it.

39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

40 But as for you, turn you, and take your journey into the wilderness by the way of the Red sea.

 

[mandym]

well, IF God desired to save someone, send forth His Spirit and His word, and the word does NOT return with accomplishing its assigned task...

IF there is NOT effectual/irristible Grace from God. than how can it NOT save those desiring to redeem?

Your assumption, and an incorrect one, is that if God desires it it must come to completion. This is the result of a poor view of the sovereignty of God. God can desire men to be saved, give them the ability to receive the Gospel, and having given man the ability stand back and give him room to respond or not to respond. If that is the choice and provision of God then it is all God.

 

[canadyjd]

Yes, and how are "the deep things of God" (the subject of Paul's discourse according to vs. 10) spiritually discerned? Scripture, which is Spiritually inspired writers recording deep spiritual matters of the faith being recorded for the very first time as Paul is writing this letter.

That is not what the passage says. Scripture is not mentioned. God's Word is not mentioned.

The passage says the "deep things of God" are spiritual discerned by those of faith because "God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit..."

Now, if you read just a little further you will find this.... (2v.12) "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us by God".

Notice that God gives His Spirit so that "we might know".... Holy Spirit is given prior to us being able to "know" the spiritual things of God. You rightly see the scriptures as a spiritual work of God... but we must first have Holy Spirit indwelling to truely understand "the things that are freely given to us by God"

See, you did it again. You assume that the Gospel is not a sufficient work of the HS to accomplish its intended task....,

The work of Holy Spirit in producing the gospel is a separate work from Holy Spirit bringing regeneration and faith. You are assuming the only work of God in bringing someone to faith is the work of Holy Spirit spirit in producing the gospel. You are dismissing the work of Holy Spirit in convicting someone of sin, drawing them to Christ through the truth of the gospel, and giving them faith as a gift.

No, I'm only arguing that the first is sufficient to save, where as the second is the result of faith. After all the bible does say that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation...and that we believe unto new life.

I affirm the necessity and power of the gospel to bring salvation...I also affirm the work of Holy Spirit in revealing the truths of God found in the gospel, of convicting someone of sin, of drawing someone to Christ, and of granting faith as a gift.

All I said is taught in scripture. I affirm it all.

I totally agree, which is why we differ on what we believe God's purposes to do. I don't believe God purposes to effectually save certain people. I believe He purposes to appeal to the world of lost sinners, "Be reconciled to God," and to hold them accountable for their free moral response to that appeal.

And I believe scripture tells us the entire world used their "free moral response" to reject God.

God, therefore, by the kind intentions of His will and compassion purposed to save those He had chosen before the foundation of the world by the power of Holy Spirit; to free them from the deception of sin, satan, and their own wills by regeneration and then gave those elect of God faith to believe the gospel of Jesus Christ. Salvation is a work of God from start to finish. Amen

peace to youraying: